Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 153 (ORI)

RAMA PRADHAN v. STATE OF ORISSA

2010-03-09

S.K.MISHRA

body2010
JUDGMENT : S.K. Mishra, J. - The writ petitioner calls in question the order passed by the learned Collector, Angul on dated 08.04.2005, 24.05.2005 and 22.10.2005. 2. The undisputed facts leading to filing of this writ petition is that the opposite party no. 3, the CDPO, Banarpal issued a notification on 07.06.2004 for holding a Mahila Sabha in Mahidharpur 'Ka' Anganwadi Centre on 07.07.2004. Accordingly a meeting was held on 07.07.2004, which was attended by 101 females of the said village. It is further pleaded that in the said Sabha 58 votes were cast in favour of the petitioner and 43 in favour of the opposite party no. 3. Therefore, the name of the petitioner should have been recommended for being engaged as the Anganwadi Helper. It is alleged that the opposite party no. 3, at the instance of the some local politicians, did not take any steps for appointment of the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner made a representation on 26.07.2004 to the Collector which did not yield any results. The CDPO issued another notification on 24.01.2005 for convening another meeting of the Mahila Sabha on 10.02.2005. It is alleged by the petitioner, she has been forcibly prevented from attending the said Sabha. Therefore, she could not participate in the 2nd Mahila Sabha. In such process, the opposite party no. 4 was selected being the only candidate. Challenging the aforesaid selection, petitioner filed writ petition No. 2248 of 2005, which was disposed by this Court on 03.03.2005 with a direction to the Collector, Angul to conduct an enquiry and dispose of the representation, as expeditiously as possible. Thereafter, the Collector, Angul on 08.04.2005 perused the documents, heard the parties and was convinced that petitioner should have been appointed as Anganwadi Helper. But for reasons best known to him, ordered that the District Social Welfare Officer (for short the 'DSWO') should make an enquiry and submit a report though this Court has specifically directed him to make an enquiry and dispose of the matter. 3. Since no further date was fixed for submission of the report by the DSWO, petitioner filed writ application No. 8588 of 2005. This Court directed the Collector, Angul to take a final decision in the matter within a period of two months. 3. Since no further date was fixed for submission of the report by the DSWO, petitioner filed writ application No. 8588 of 2005. This Court directed the Collector, Angul to take a final decision in the matter within a period of two months. In pursuance of such order on 19.09.2005, the Collector without any intimation to the petitioner accepted the report of the DSWO and directed that the opposite party no. 4 be engaged as Anganwadi Helper with respect to the Mahidhapur 'Ka' Anganwadi Centre. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that though in course of enquire the Collector has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is eligible for being engaged as the Anganwadi Helper as she has secured 15 more votes than the opposite party no. 4, instead of making an order to that effect, the Collector ordered the DSWO to enquiry into the matter. After submission of the reports of the DSWO, the Collector without application of mind accepted the same. Therefore, the petitioner prays that the order passed by the learned Collector be quashed and a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued directing the opposite parties to engage the present petitioner as Anganwadi Helper in respect of Mahidharpur 'Ka' Anganwadi Centre. 5. The opposite party no. 4 has filed counter affidavit, inter alia, pleading that Mahila Sabha was convened on 07.07.2004, wherein she participated as a candidate for being engaged as Anganwadi helper. She further pleads at that time due to heavy rain only 101 women of village Mahidharpur were present. Some of the members of the said Sabha also protested and requested the opposite parties not to conduct the Mahila Sabha because of heavy rain. It is further pleaded that the petitioner in order to get votes played mischief by showing her power she forcibly took members from the side of the opposite party no. 4, as a result of which 58 votes were cast in her favour and 43 were cast in favour of the opposite party no. 4. It is further pleaded that thereafter on 07.07.2004 some of the villagers of village Mahidharpur submitted a representation before the opposite party no. 3 as well as higher authorities for fresh Mahila Sabha. On receipt of protest petition the higher authorities enquired into the, matter and decided to conduct Mahila Sabha for selection of Anganwadi Helper. Accordingly, the opposite party no. 3 as well as higher authorities for fresh Mahila Sabha. On receipt of protest petition the higher authorities enquired into the, matter and decided to conduct Mahila Sabha for selection of Anganwadi Helper. Accordingly, the opposite party no. 3 issued a notice on 24.01.2005 and a meeting was held on 10.02.2005 wherein the contesting opposite party was selected for being engaged as Anganwadi Helper. It is further pleaded that in the meantime, the deponent has successfully underwent training and discharging her duties to the satisfaction of all concerned. The opposite party no. 4 pleaded that the petitioner participated in the 2nd Mahila Sabha on 10.02.2005 and after voting she came to know more votes in favour of opposite party no. 4, she left the said Sabha. The allegation that she was forcibly prevented from attending the Sabha is denied. It is further pleaded by the opposite party no. 4 that the Collector, Angul after enquiring into the matter and taking into consideration the reports submitted by the DSWO, decided that the appointment of the opposite party no. 4 is valid and the petitioner has no right to be engaged. Thus the opposite party no. 4 prayed to reject the writ petition. 6. The opposite parties 2 and 3 have also filed written counter almost pleading the same fact as pleaded by opposite party no. 4. 7. In course of hearing of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the learned Collector is erroneous, in view of the fact that, he has come to the contrary findings. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed to quash the order of the collector and issue writ of mandamus in favour of the petitioner. Learned Addl. Government Advocate produced the file relating to the selection of Anganwadi Helpers filed by DSWO and argued that the petitioner has no case and the same should be dismissed. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 4 also prayed and argued extensively supporting the order passed by the learned Collector. 8. The guidelines issued by the Government of Orissa, Women and Child Department governing the selection procedure for engagement of Anganwadi Helper have been issued on 24.11.1997 (Vide no. 9994/ WCD). Learned counsel for opposite party no. 4 also prayed and argued extensively supporting the order passed by the learned Collector. 8. The guidelines issued by the Government of Orissa, Women and Child Department governing the selection procedure for engagement of Anganwadi Helper have been issued on 24.11.1997 (Vide no. 9994/ WCD). In the said guidelines, the Government has directed all the CDPO and DSWO that a Committee consisting of the CDPO, Supervisor in-charge of area and ANM in-charge of the area should select the Helper in consultation with the women groups of the village. It is further directed that for any reason to be recorded in writing if it is not possible to make the selection in a particular village, the selection may be made in the project headquarters by the above mentioned Committee. However, the candidates selected should be having minimum qualification prescribed therein. 9. There is no specific direction to hold a Mahila Sabha in the said guidelines but as the Committee supposed to consult the women groups of the village, it is appropriate that Chairman and the two members of the Selection Committee should convene a Mahila Sabha and consult the women groups. Thus, holding the Mahila Sabha is proper. 10. In this case the Chairman of the Selection Committee, i.e. CDPO has issued first notice of such a Mahila Sabha on 07.06.2004 and the Sabha was held on 07.07.2004. Thereafter the CDPO again issued a notice on 24.01.2005 to convene a Mahila Sabha on 10.02.2005 with respect to Mahidharpur 'Ka' Anganwadi Centre. Dealing with this aspect, the learned Collector after scrutinizing documents produced before him has held as follows. Considering all the facts and records submitted before me, I do not fin any justification to convene the 2nd Mahila Sabha in the village for selection of AWH for Mahidharpur 'Ka' Anganwadi Centre when the 1st Mahila Sabha was peaceful and selection was made as per rules. Hence, DSWO is directed to make a local enquiry in the village and submit enquiry report on 1st Mahila Sabha conducted on 07.07.2004. 11. The report of the DSWO has been placed before the Court. In his report, the DSWO has reflected that in course of enquiry 12 numbers of lady members were present who had attended the original Mahila Sabha. 11. The report of the DSWO has been placed before the Court. In his report, the DSWO has reflected that in course of enquiry 12 numbers of lady members were present who had attended the original Mahila Sabha. The DSWO further reported that those ladies had cast their votes and that they had selected Gitanjali Sahoo, W/o Naresh Sahoo as Anganwadi Helper, who was a more deserving educated young lady. It is also revealed that there was over writings in the minutes of the Sabha. She further reported that most of the lady members favored Gitanjali Sahoo for being engaged as Anganwadi Helper at Mahidrapur 'Ka' Anganwadi Centre. 12. I have also perused copy of the minutes of the meeting held on 07.07.2004. A bare perusal of the record reveals that the result of the voting has been interpolated in the sense that there is over writing over the figure appearing against the name of present petitioner and it has been corrected to read as "58", whereas the total votes cast in favour of the opposite party no. 4, Gitanjali Sahoo has been overwritten and corrected to read as "43". 13. Thus, on the facts of the case, it is crystal clear that a meeting was convened on 07.07.2004 and the same was held as per the guidelines. There is an allegation of gaining over members of the Mahila Sabha by the petitioner. It is also apparent on the face of the record that there has been an interpolation on the figures of the votes cast in favour of the petitioner and the opposite party no. 4. Therefore, though the learned Collector has found that the selection was made as per the rules, the same is free from doubt. It is further alleged that the petitioner was prevented from attending the 2nd Mahila Sabha. The guideline issued by the Government of Orissa, Women and Child Development is silent about the reconvening of such meeting. The same can be done but not in a routine manner. Whenever there is an allegation of violation of the procedure laid down or an allegation to the effect that some members of the Mahila Sabha were prevented from participating in the said Sabha, a 2nd Mahila Sabha can be convened by the Chairman, i.e. the CDPO. While convening such a 2nd Mahila Sabha, the CDPO must record his or her opinion regarding the same. While convening such a 2nd Mahila Sabha, the CDPO must record his or her opinion regarding the same. In this case, no such document is forth coming to show the ground on the basis of which the opposite party no. 3 considered the re-convening 2nd Mahila Sabha. There is absolutely no noting in the records the grounds on which the Mahila Sabha was reconvened. 14. Thus, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the selection of the petitioner in the first Mahila Sabha cannot be held to be free from doubt. Secondly, the convening of the 2nd Mahila Sabha do not appear to be free from any manipulated move by the opposite party no. 3. Thus, the interest of the justice will be served only if a fresh Mahila Sabha is conducted as per the revised guidelines, in which both the present petitioner and the opposite party no. 4 should participate and meeting should be conducted in a peaceful manner. 15. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of quashing the order passed by the Collector, as at Annexure 1 and 2. The order of engagement in favour of opposite party no. 4 is quashed. The CDPO, Angul, i.e. opposite party no. 3, is directed to reconvene the meeting of the Mahila Sabha of Mahidharpur 'Ka' Anganwadi Centre. The women groups of that village shall again deliberate and decide who they want to be nominated as the Anganwadi Helper. The file of D.S.W.O. be returned to the Addl. Government Advocate. Both the writ petition and the Misc. Case are disposed of. No costs.